What is a Fig 29 target? (As referenced in the L98A2 CLF3 and 4 shoots.)
About A5 size
I thought ACP 18 Vol3 included an example image
It isn’t a Fig 29 target, it is a No. 29 Target.
I guess that is due to an error in the ACP.
It does - page 3-2
That was immensely helpful, thanks. Friendly armourers have just given me a stack…
Absolute stupidity using the No 29 target for CLFs 3 & 4 having zeroed the weapon at 25m TO 300m in CLF2!
It merely sets the Cdt up for failure.
Obviously, whoever thought this up is not a service Rifle shooter.
What do you think they should be shooting at?
The original versiom of the L98A2 progressive syllabus had CLFs 3 & 4 fired against full size Fig 11 targets, which made a lot of sense if one understood CLF2. It was changed to No 29 targets on the feedback from 6 Wgs such that the Cdt could take their tgt home.
I reiterate, if you follow CLF2 and zero to 300m AT 25m then the rounds will go 25mm low (on iron sights). Ergo, if a Cdt uses the base of the tin hat as the aiming point on the No 29, he or she CAN NOT achieve the score required for the Marksman badge because the rounds CAN NOT strike the bull.
Additionally, it means that when they progress to CLF 5 on a long range (and WILL be shooting against Fig 11 targets) they will have no concept of the POA required.
What we should be using (if the Cdt wants to take their target home) is the representative Fig 11 (ie the one that is about 8" tall and looks at 25m what a real Fig 11 would look like at 300m.
Equally there’s no reason that they couldn’t fold up their fig 11 to take home.
Indeed, other than the fact that Fig 11s are historiclly bonded to a plywood former by Range Wardens.
Pretty thin though. I reckon you could fold it if you tried.
My experience has always been that you find 6 plywood forms on the average range and you then paste additional paper targets on top.
It’s a simple matter to take the paper target off again.
Agreed. If that is seen as the only way to shoot the individual CLFs, then there needs to be a suitable scoring template based on a 25mm correction - but that’s a faff!
A minor point, it’s a faff securing Fig 29 tgts to the backing board with masking tape.
The only “slight” advantage of using Fig 29 is that it can be easier for a coach to see the fall of shot, rather than all together on the Fig 11.
The revised syllabus (i.e. the complete CLF exercises) take more range time, so fewer cadets can shoot.
I can’t say I have ever got on board with it.
although i recognise it is making the format and approach of shooting more structured and logical - it also takes longer, seems to remove any “fun” element of shooting, simply by being such a long, laboured process with analysis of the target and adjustments to sights when all the cadets want to do is squeeze the trigger, feel and hear the bang and get 5-20 holes reasonably close together on a piece of card.
Odd that you don’t seem to be concerned about trying to go through a PTS and zeroing what will inevitably be a shared rifle.
Even during a planned shooting weekend and progressing up through CLFs 1-4, it can be very difficult to ensure a firer has exclusive access to one rifle; impossible unless everybody else just twiddles their thumbs while 6 people work up through all their shooting in one push.
Yep, it is another of the faff issues - or, a re-zero = more time taken up.
completely agree, and in an ideal world we’d have individual rifles for the day, fortunately for L98A2 this tends to be the case.
(although telling how effective the process is with words such as “difficult” and “impossible” in how it is managed)
I don’t disagree with the idea:
the cadets don’t see that approach and just see as much time in the range not shooting and studying holes in card as there is in the prone position squeezing the trigger.
in my opinion, as great as the new approach is (on paper) we are not seeing more badges* on Brassards. I could accept the system taking longer, creating a slower throughput and reducing the element of “fun” from the experience if it achieved more.
but in my experience the achievement is the same - there are still only a handful of Cadets who get close to the critical scores and of them maybe one reaches the required level by the end of the day.
*not an ideal measure of success, but an easy one and one which the Cadets can understand and if nothing else is easy to compare old and new systems
Have to admit my shooting day coming up is morning on DCCT, afternoon on live range. We’ll do CLF1 and 2 on DCCT then progress to range. This does mean that we can’t zero on CLF2, though.
The “old” system used to allow a differing qualification score , even if shooting on the same detail.
For example, on air rifle, you could have one firer trying to achieve sqn MM (grouping 2 x 5 initially) with another trying for Wg / Region (5 x 2). Same range time, but easy to achieve. Personally, I have found that it now takes about double the range time to get to the comparable MM level based on the need to progress through the CLF stages.
Currently, & understandingly, for the CLF syllabus, those cadets who are “very close” to the required score will get prioritised on the day (especially for L98), to the detriment of some of the other cadets. Previously, it was fairly easy to ensure that all cadets shot more or less the same number of rounds, even with about 50% more attending an L98 shoot.
Do people not use the Small Arms Collimator and log Cadets zero points and then simply set the rifles back to that and fire a quick check group?
I’ve just checked and don’t see an issue here… CLF 3 and 4 are about different types of fire and different positions. CLF 2 is about basics of zeroing and getting them to zero the weapon and understand the principles. The sight is 200m also, not 300m if my memory serves me right.
CLF 5 is their introduction to firing at 100M, what is the issue with introducing the Fig 11 at this stage of the lessons? You simply show them the target and highlight the correct POA for them.
Zeroing the weapon to the CZP for the 200M iron sight instead of the POA in order for them to hit the bull is the issue here more than anything and probably the bit of terminology that should be updated in CLF 2.